Is this really about accuracy?

[Rosacrux]

We've been moaning and screaming (like flaming pigs on acid http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ) in the past few days about the unhistorical context regarding 3rd century Egypt, but... Alright, let's face it: It ain't about "historical accuracy" per se - at least not the way I see it.

It's that they - CA - believe we are morons. By including a host of kindergarten units (pigs, dogs, women, cats, leopards, transformers, pokemon and the infamous pink flamingos) and by screwing the Ptolemaic faction beyond any point of recognition, what CA shows is that they adamantly believe this game aims at the lowest possible common denominator. It aims at kids who play shoot-em-ups for fun and when they want a real challenge they play AOK online and go like "I am king of kingz PH34R".

Only that kind of people can think pigs, dogs and the rest of the circus, plus the pharaonic Egyptian, are "cool".

That is why I am outraged, at least.

VOTE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif

[Brighdaasa]

i love ca

they are making an incredible game and the historical inaccuracies are no worse than mtw imho, learn to live with it and enjoy the game or don't buy it at all

[The_Emperor]

For me this is all about Historical Accuracy.

With everything else to do with RTW we seem to be doing ok.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Brighdaasa @ June 16 2004,04:24)]i love ca

they are making an incredible game and the historical inaccuracies are no worse than mtw imho, learn to live with it and enjoy the game or don't buy it at all
I disagree. MTW had a few historically innaccurate units, but it didn't have whole factions made up of them. That is looking to be the case with the Egyptian faction in RTW.

[rasoforos]

Of course making and selling something because it is 'no worse' than something else is a logical strategy. However it makes you wonder why wasnt the product made 'better' than something else.
Why should CA bother with a historical game if its not gonna be historical ? Even basic touches that would make the game better were rejected while money is being spend in screaming women armed with rolling pins who spend their time chasing their husbands who were transormed into flaming pigs by thw evil warrior druids filled with magic potion.

[Sir Moody]

Ive said this already they havent "made up" the Egyptian Faction - READ the descriptions - There are 3 Pike Phalanx's and there is a Greek like Heavy Cav - so while they have indeed added some stupid Fantasy units The CORE of the Successor State armies is in...

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I couldn't give a rats arse about it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

By the way who is CA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Cebei]

As I said before, CA has committed suicide.

TW series are not for your ordinary Starcraft flock type. A majority of strategy gamers will not get RTW saying that "its just too boring".

What remains will be us. A small but happy minority of boring history buffs, who are fans of TW series because of historical accuracy.

RTW attracts none of the above categories. The question is, who will get RTW? A marketing catastrophy if you ask me.

[rasoforos]

Cebei , RTW got so much publicity that it will sell like crazy to the average RTS player. Who cares if they ll propably leave it aside after 5 hours of gameplay? Some people will make moneyyyy...the people who have been buying their games for years are small potatoes

[Rosacrux]

Publicity, yes. They'll make a shetload of money out of it, seems so. But with all the publicity they got anyway, even without the pigs, dogs, womenz, flamingoz, pokemon, werevolves, vampires, dambo da elephant and buffy the vampire slayer, WTF is the whole host of kindergarten units needed, escapes my mind.

[Shamus]

I’m just curious. How many people here own their own company that manufactures computer games? How many people here have been putting out games in the gaming market for a few years now, and thus have learned at least something as to what sells a computer game? Please, raise your hands if you are one of those people.

I find it laughable how many people here have NO experience running a successful gamming company, and yet think that they know better than the people who do. Just because you know what you like, does not mean that you know what the gaming community at large enjoys, nor does it mean that you know what will make for a successful computer game.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Thats a good point geez http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Blodrast]

well, as shamus pretty straightforwardly put it, that's kinda true.
i believe rasoforos is right, and there's your answer, rosacrux: the units are there because they make the game look better not for you, but for the masses.
Cebei:
"TW series are not for your ordinary Starcraft flock type"

Precisely they weren't so far. But like shamus points out, any sane company would ideally like to sell to everyone. And especially to the more numerous ranges of prospective customers...and like it or not, the majority of game buyers are not older (late 20s, 30s, etc) ppl who will play the game for years, but _kids_ who may or may not play it, but who will buy it And although I can't say for sure, my guess is that flaming pigs and what not _will_ make for a larger market share for the game...
would you, as a 14-year old kid, with next to nil knowledge of history, be interested to play a game that is highly historically accurate, in which the units mean nothing for you (hitites ? hoplites ? say what ? wth were the ptolem-? screw this, i'll play CS), and so on ? I for one, looking back a few good years, would guess that I would have found it boring, and too dry for my taste at that time.

[TigerVX]

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ June 16 2004,11:00)]I’m just curious. How many people here own their own company that manufactures computer games? How many people here have been putting out games in the gaming market for a few years now, and thus have learned at least something as to what sells a computer game? Please, raise your hands if you are one of those people.

I find it laughable how many people here have NO experience running a successful gamming company, and yet think that they know better than the people who do. Just because you know what you like, does not mean that you know what the gaming community at large enjoys, nor does it mean that you know what will make for a successful computer game.
Why thats the most logically thing I've heard i a while http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Many gamers where put off by the graphics of MTW and STW, it still had 2D sprites when games like W3 where having full 3D. Now with full 3D units and thousands of men, its gonna sell like hot cakes no matter whats in it.

[RisingSun]

Exactly, but by trying tio please everyone, they please no one. Even if the Egyptians are now more "fun" because they have more units- Post Marius Rome has a whole THREE. Aux. cavalry, auxiliaries, and legions. THAT'S IT. So they may as well screw that faction over as well, too, right?

They are gonna try to market this to the masses, but they will ignore it anyway What other games does this have to compete with? Half Life 2. Doom III. It has no chance.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

RTW will be mediocre at best.

For me, it's about the lies and the inaccuracy. I would be upset at the inaccuracies, but that they lied to is absolutely heinous. We are the hardcore fans who have made this game sell by word of mouth. What happens when we leave, CA? What then?

RTW is nothing but a disappointment.

[ah_dut]

hello? anybody home bloodrast? Historically accurate games can sell you know, look what STW and MTW did.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ June 16 2004,11:00)]I’m just curious. How many people here own their own company that manufactures computer games? How many people here have been putting out games in the gaming market for a few years now, and thus have learned at least something as to what sells a computer game? Please, raise your hands if you are one of those people.
I'm curious, do you have the qualifications you mentioned??

I'll bet not, but yet you still feel free to comment on CA now knowing exactly what they need to do to sell product - and laugh at others who do the same.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I find it a bit sad that - as CA has (in your words) "learned at least something as to what sells a computer game" - that they have gotten farther and farther away from a good historical grounding.

As a dyed in the wool capitalist I salute them for trying to make a bundle.

As a historian I shudder at the Fantasy units that are being presented.

As a poster on these boards that has eagerly lapped up every morsel of info from the Devs. and followed the Building and Unit posts avidly, I am disappointed that what I thought I was getting will be dumbded down to reach some snot nosed kid that wouldn't know a Ptolemy from a Ramses.

Barkhorn.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 16 2004,12:31)]hello? anybody home bloodrast? Historically accurate games can sell you know, look what STW and MTW did.
Hello? anybody home ah_dut? STW and MTw were certainly not historically accurate... for your own credibilty, pick other games as example of historically accurate game with good sales.

Thanks,

Louis,

[scooter_the_shooter]

i am 12 and i dont think that the pigs and that are cool at most i think hering screaming women in the battle field will just make me mad it will get So annoying i think but no one can be sure

and i am not the majority of my gneration but i dont think many of us will like the pigs and annoying screaming women http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm a would be a historian studying military history and i couldn't care less about the units. I just don't care at all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Blodrast]

Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 16 2004,12:31)]hello? anybody home bloodrast? Historically accurate games can sell you know, look what STW and MTW did.
sure they can. but honestly, can they match quake/unreal/*craft/aom ? i don't think so.
come on, the point is to make as much money as you can, not "some" money.
and truly, w/out being malicious or anything, I _would_ like to know roughly how many copies stw/mtw sold.

i'm probably not the best example there is, but i hadn't heard of stw/mtw until this year. have i heard of the others ? you bet. and that goes for _all_ my friends who are into gaming as well.
(and no, i don't live in a cave, and i do have a few hundred games).

i love mtw. but face it, it never had an impact as significant as any other half dozen games on the market.

[TigerVX]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 16 2004,11:31)]They are gonna try to market this to the masses, but they will ignore it anyway What other games does this have to compete with? Half Life 2. Doom III. It has no chance.
What do you mean no chance? Those are First Person shooters Thats a whole nother catigory. This is the best RTS coming out according to everyone, and RTS fans will buy it because of the huge hype and new graphics. Again, many gamers where put off by the graphis of STW and MTW, RTW has the best graphis a RTS has had yet. Gamers judge a game on Graphics and only gameplay after they buy it.

[Shamus]

Quote[/b] ]I'm curious, do you have the qualifications you mentioned??

I'll bet not, but yet you still feel free to comment on CA now knowing exactly what they need to do to sell product - and laugh at others who do the same.

Please point out to me where I posted my own thoughts as to whether CA was making good or bad business moves. Also, please point out where I said that CA knows exactly what they need to do sell a product. You seem to be putting words in my mouth here.

All I simply stated was that a company with a great deal of experience in the business of selling video games, likely knows more than an individual with no experience in selling video games. Do you not agree with that logic?

I just find it humorous that someone not involved in the business of selling a certain product, thinks they know more than someone who is. It would be like me telling a car designer with years in the business, that their design wont sell because I don’t like it.

My point is; they are qualified (through their experiences) with regards to knowing what works and what doesn’t, whereas I am not. It therefore seems logical to assume that they know more about the subject than I.

[Cebei]

Duh, I dunno. I still dont believe CA will make money on the current mess. Perhaps they made the game for themselves. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[DemonArchangel]

Well, the folks at CA are getting my money, that's a given fact

I LOVE RTW the game and the battles look GORGEOUS

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Blodrast @ June 16 2004,19:53)]
Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 16 2004,12:31)]hello? anybody home bloodrast? Historically accurate games can sell you know, look what STW and MTW did.
sure they can. but honestly, can they match quake/unreal/*craft/aom ? i don't think so.
come on, the point is to make as much money as you can, not "some" money.
and truly, w/out being malicious or anything, I _would_ like to know roughly how many copies stw/mtw sold.

i'm probably not the best example there is, but i hadn't heard of stw/mtw until this year. have i heard of the others ? you bet. and that goes for _all_ my friends who are into gaming as well.
(and no, i don't live in a cave, and i do have a few hundred games).

i love mtw. but face it, it never had an impact as significant as any other half dozen games on the market.
That's the entire /.']#'[] point, They need to appeal to the nich market (read us)

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 16 2004,19:49)]
Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 16 2004,12:31)]hello? anybody home bloodrast? Historically accurate games can sell you know, look what STW and MTW did.
Hello? anybody home ah_dut? STW and MTw were certainly not historically accurate... for your own credibilty, pick other games as example of historically accurate game with good sales.

Thanks,

Louis,
Hello? They don't have pretty much made up factions I think i know more history than you give me credit for here

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Sure... They do have completly made up factions in MTW...

Louis,

[ah_dut]

name one

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Italy?

Louis,

[TigerVX]

I can't believe you people think that CA will become bankrupt and Rome Total War will be a failure cuz maybe... 100 people won't buy it.

[Lord Aeon]

If anything, threads like this would suggest to CA *NOT* to waste their time catering to the loud-mouthed, assholish minority. It doesn't really seem worth it to spend time and energy placating you people when they have no way of knowing how "accurate" they have to be, historically speaking, to get you to purchase their game.

In other words, why spend the required development time/resources on making the game uber-historically-accurate, when these people are nitpicking the stupidest little thing? Let's say CA right now reworks the Egyptian faction altogether to the haters' specifications. How many of you honestly think that at least half of them wouldn't just find another reason to hate Rome? That at least half of them wouldn't find another reason not to buy the game?

That's not a viable strategy for software development. Those 100 or so people aren't going to buy the damn game anyway. It's not possible for a game to be 100% historically accurate. Hell, not even our modern accounts of HISTORY are 100% historically accurate. So if you're CA you have to balance between making a fun game, staying in budget, getting things done on time, and keeping the game bug free. If striking this balance means that the fans themselves have to mod in barbarians with a different colored belt buckle or whatever, so be it.

Nitpicking comic book store miniature-painters will never understand real life because the concept of compromise is foreign to them.

So yes, CA may think you're morons, but only because you missing the forest for the friggin trees here.

[Duke John]

This is the last thing I will add to this issue. I've looked through quite alot of historical books. And I found it interesting how artists "always" depicted historical battles with armies of their current fashion. You will see the Battle of Hastings, Ancient battles with soldiers in fullplate armour. Over time it seems common for artists to make history up-to-date/modern. It's the same with movies, none of them are 100% accurate because history was "upgraded" to our current views and fashion. The same happens with games. In this time that means exploding/cool stuff.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] ]Nitpicking comic book store miniature-painters will never understand real life because the concept of compromise is foreign to them.


I think you could have made your point without flaming...

Anyway if this is meant to be a historical strategy game, then why not make it historical? Seems pretty ludicrous to me.

At any rate those of us who do have issues with this game are not asking for 100% accuracy because it is not possible.
Many of us just want a MTW level of historical accuracy, or at best a Shogun level.

We don't think CA will go bankrupt, but we do think that RTW can be better than it has been presented thus far. Nothing wrong with helping to raise the bar a bit.

[Leet Eriksson]

the egyptian problem is mainly a mainstream one,i'd like to see ONE game where the ptolmeys are accurate,3rd century hellenestic egypt,i played Preatorians and several other games based on the roman era,and not ONE of them had an accurate egypt,all of them had egypt look like 10th century BC New Kingdom Egypt that emphasize camels and chariots.

[TigerVX]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 16 2004,15:19)]We don't think CA will go bankrupt, but we do think that RTW can be better than it has been presented thus far. Nothing wrong with helping to raise the bar a bit.
Better in your standards anyways http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif What you want can be alot different then what the common RTS fan wants.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (TigerVX @ June 16 2004,21:34)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 16 2004,15:19)]We don't think CA will go bankrupt, but we do think that RTW can be better than it has been presented thus far. Nothing wrong with helping to raise the bar a bit.
Better in your standards anyways http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif What you want can be alot different then what the common RTS fan wants.
You think an RTS fan will cry if Egypt doesn't have "The Mummy" style units... I think you'll find they wouldn't care.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (TigerVX @ June 16 2004,15:34)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 16 2004,15:19)]We don't think CA will go bankrupt, but we do think that RTW can be better than it has been presented thus far. Nothing wrong with helping to raise the bar a bit.
Better in your standards anyways http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif What you want can be alot different then what the common RTS fan wants.
But don't you understand that TW's series can't ever compete with the likes of Warcraft, Starcratft, etc? If that is CA's purpose they will fail. They will surelly sell more than MTW, but they won't break Blizzard or their competitors.

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (Blodrast @ June 16 2004,08:20)]well, as shamus pretty straightforwardly put it, that's kinda true.
i believe rasoforos is right, and there's your answer, rosacrux: the units are there because they make the game look better not for you, but for the masses.
Cebei:
"TW series are not for your ordinary Starcraft flock type"

Precisely they weren't so far. But like shamus points out, any sane company would ideally like to sell to everyone. And especially to the more numerous ranges of prospective customers...and like it or not, the majority of game buyers are not older (late 20s, 30s, etc) ppl who will play the game for years, but _kids_ who may or may not play it, but who will buy it And although I can't say for sure, my guess is that flaming pigs and what not _will_ make for a larger market share for the game...
would you, as a 14-year old kid, with next to nil knowledge of history, be interested to play a game that is highly historically accurate, in which the units mean nothing for you (hitites ? hoplites ? say what ? wth were the ptolem-? screw this, i'll play CS), and so on ? I for one, looking back a few good years, would guess that I would have found it boring, and too dry for my taste at that time.
Totally wrong. I did research on the videogame industry when I was in business school. Over 60% of PC gamers are over the age of 18.

You need to grasp the concept of the niche market. Every product out there has a target market. The TW series is too complicated, too long, etc. to appeal to casual players. The best selling RTS games generally have games that don't last more than 1 hour. The TW series are more for gamers who are willing to dedicate a lot of time playing a single game. The people who are most likely to buy this game are more serious gamers than the average gamer.

I'm not looking for 100% historical accuracy. I just don't want Egypt to have 100% historical inaccuracy. Even if only half the units are somewhat accurate, I'd be really happy.

[Sjakihata]

Ok, all those of you who moans about the game not being historically accurate. It's REALLY getting on my nervers. Who cares about your moaning? No one is FORCING you to buy the game or even be involved in it if it is not to your taste. So stop pestering these forums, please.

Now, I'm thankful for CA creating this great engine and strategy game that will entertain me for HOURS and HOURS

If you want entertainment that is historical correct for HOURS read some books

[The_678]

I only read the first few posts but I think you guys are going way too overboard about the egyptian units.

The Egyptians will still have basic "Greekish" unitsw as well as their Egypt ones. The rest of the factions are pretty fine and I dont really mind haveing a unique faction out there instead of just another greek clone.

As for the pigs, well dont you think they will be just plain fun anyways? And think of the modding oppurtunities the pigs will give.

So quit complaining and just have some fun. It's a game

[discovery1]

Quote[/b] ]The Egyptians will still have basic "Greekish" unitsw as well as their Egypt ones.

Uh, I would really appreicate a link that confirms this statement, b/c I don't remember every reading such(not that I ever read gamestar b/c I don't have acess to a quality translator).

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]Uh, I would really appreicate a link that confirms this statement, b/c I don't remember every reading such(not that I ever read gamestar b/c I don't have acess to a quality translator).

here u go (http://pc.ign.com/articles/521/521278p1.html?fromint=1)

read the descriptions and u will see 3 Pike Phanalax Formations and a Greek like Heavy Horse - Doesnt get much more Greek like - of course u can also see the stupid units in that list as well but you have to take the good with the bad

Good Units = Slingers, Archers, Peasants, Nile Spearmen (read pikemen), Nubian Spearmen, Pharaohs Guard (Pike), Nubian Cavalry , Nile Cavalry

Fantasy units = Camel Archers , Egyptian Chariots, Egyptian Chariot Archers ,Desert Axemen , Pharaoh's Bowmen

[Shamus]

Are people here claiming that the Egyptians never had chariots, or just that they didn’t have chariots during the time-frame of the game?

[discovery1]

Quote[/b] ]Good Units = Slingers, Archers, Peasants, Nile Spearmen (read pikemen), Nubian Spearmen, Pharaohs Guard (Pike), Nubian Cavalry , Nile Cavalry

Slight problem: we don't know what they look like.

This:http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/521/521278/rome-total-war-20040604021440521-000.jpg

Could be the Nile Cavalry for all we know.


Quote[/b] ]Are people here claiming that the Egyptians never had chariots, or just that they didn’t have chariots during the time-frame of the game?

Yhat they didn't have chariots in the time frame. It's well known that the Egyptions had light chariot archers in the new kingdom.

[andrewt]

They didn't have chariots during the time frame of the game. Chariots are off by hundreds, if not a thousand years.

The chariots used in the game were never used by the Egyptians. They are mostly Hittite. Egyptians used lighter chariots.

The moment I get the game, if I actually get it, I will mod in a "Moses" unit that will totally destroy Egypt in 1 turn.

[The_Emperor]

In this time frame its the Britons who used Chariots, so they have that base covered.

Though I am betting that the Egyptian Scythed Chariots inclusion is due to a certain battle scene in Gladiator, which was very impressive...

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Lord Aeon @ June 16 2004,15:06)] Nitpicking comic book store miniature-painters will never understand real life because the concept of compromise is foreign to them.

Quote[/b] ]If anything, threads like this would suggest to CA *NOT* to waste their time catering to the loud-mouthed, assholish minority.

Actually, every poll done on the subject in all the major Total War fansites proves that you are part of a small minority. Also, I'm of the opinion that those who are happy with the fantasy units tend to be the most loud-mouthed and abrasive.

When I first started posting criticism of some of the fantasy units (in a tactful manner, mind you) there always would be a couple people who would blow their top, and commence with flaming. I've noticed this time & again with other people as well. These raving fanboys for fantasy units as I have now dubbed them, for the most part are the ones with the bad attitudes that flame other members. They treat every criticism of the game as if it were blasphemy, act like they get a paycheck from CA, and instead of defending fantasy units usually make disparaging remarks about those that criticize them. (ex. Nitpicking comic book store miniature-painters will never understand real life because the concept of compromise is foreign to them.) A bit ridiculous if you ask me, and I think it says a whole lot more about the person making such a statement needing to get a life.

Granted that doesn't apply to everyone who is happy with the fantasy units, but it does seem to apply to most.

[Sir Moody]

yes those are the Nile Cavalry BUT looks are less important to FUNCTION - these are a Greek like Heavy Cav and so in Function they work well

Looks are of Sub Importance to Function

[discovery1]

Uh, they look like they are from 3000 BC, not 300. The prblem of historical innaccuracy is still a problem.

[Rosacrux]

Longshanks

Nicely written http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Sir Moody]

Discovery Looks arnt as important as function - they may look ancient but they function as they are supposed to thus the problem of looks can really be ignored - Much with women Beauty is skin deep in computer games and if this Cavalry Function Like the Greek Heavy then how they look is unimportant except to the most Devout History nut - i like History but im not gonna cling to it that far

[Lord Aeon]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ June 17 2004,06:35)]Actually, every poll done on the subject in all the major Total War fansites proves that you are part of a small minority. Also, I'm of the opinion that those who are happy with the fantasy units tend to be the most loud-mouthed and abrasive.

When I first started posting criticism of some of the fantasy units (in a tactful manner, mind you) there always would be a couple people who would blow their top, and commence with flaming. I've noticed this time & again with other people as well. These raving fanboys for fantasy units as I have now dubbed them, for the most part are the ones with the bad attitudes that flame other members. They treat every criticism of the game as if it were blasphemy, act like they get a paycheck from CA, and instead of defending fantasy units usually make disparaging remarks about those that criticize them. (ex. Nitpicking comic book store miniature-painters will never understand real life because the concept of compromise is foreign to them.) A bit ridiculous if you ask me, and I think it says a whole lot more about the person making such a statement needing to get a life.

Granted that doesn't apply to everyone who is happy with the fantasy units, but it does seem to apply to most.
Frankly, tact and even-headedness have been out the window for some time here. The mustard is off the hot dog, friend. Read the first post of this thread and then tell me about tact in criticism. Please.

So you can reply with all the pomp and circumstance that makes you feel better in overreacting about the headdresses of units in a video game or whatever, but the fact remains that some of you people *are* overreacting. It is also true that every criticism of the game is not blasphemy; on this i agree. In fact, you can't count more than three posts i've made in this forum that have expressed my disdain for the historical fanatics. If what i wrote doesn't apply to you (according to both of us, ostensibly), and if i've never directly replied to anything you've posted, why take offense at what i wrote? Hmmm...

What's curious is how you absolutely ignored the meat of the post and attacked the few borderline incindiary commments i made in the post. Nothing else i said in that post means anything to you does it?

Of course it doesn't. You wouldn't admit that however, because the concept of compromise is foreign to you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif So if you're gonna challenge me, at least address the point i made, instead of floating ad hominem attacks at me and ignoring the meat of my post. Thanks

[Kraxis]

Longshanks, the reason the polls show that there is a majority for the 'historical correctness league' and not the 'love-of-fantasy alliance', is because every poll but one has been.

Would you like more historical correctness. Yes we do, but do we want it for everything? No.

Take a look at the poll of how we like it now. The one with the Egypt as it is, Egypt as perfect Ptolomaic Empire or a mix... Lo and behold, a majority for the last... People that in general would want more historical correctness, but don't need it. Those are the majority

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ June 16 2004,22:46)]Are people here claiming that the Egyptians never had chariots, or just that they didn’t have chariots during the time-frame of the game?
In the New Kingdom period (up to 1070BC), they had light chariots without scythes and with a driver and an archer. It was used exclusivelly for skirmishing actions. They never used scythes.

Both CA's depictions are of heavy chariots with scythes, one having a driver and 2 armoured men with swords, the other a driver and 2 archers. They will both be used for impact actions. The Egyptians never used impact chariots, heavy chariots or 3 soldier chariots.

See the difference?

After Egypt had fallen over the domain of the Assyrians (715BC) they never used chariots again. They later became a Persian province (525BC) and later still fell under Alexander's domain (332BC). One of Alexander's generals (Ptolomei) gained control for himself as Satrap of Egypt in 323BC and intitled himself King in 305BC. It's descendants ruled Egypt, until Rome entered the arena in 30BC.

These many outside influences greatly modified the culture of Egypt. In the period of the game, Egypt was of Greek culture.

You can find more historical info here:

History of Ancient Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ancient_Egypt)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ June 17 2004,06:35)]
Quote[/b] (Lord Aeon @ June 16 2004,15:06)] Nitpicking comic book store miniature-painters will never understand real life because the concept of compromise is foreign to them.

Quote[/b] ]If anything, threads like this would suggest to CA *NOT* to waste their time catering to the loud-mouthed, assholish minority.

Actually, every poll done on the subject in all the major Total War fansites proves that you are part of a small minority. Also, I'm of the opinion that those who are happy with the fantasy units tend to be the most loud-mouthed and abrasive.

When I first started posting criticism of some of the fantasy units (in a tactful manner, mind you) there always would be a couple people who would blow their top, and commence with flaming. I've noticed this time & again with other people as well. These raving fanboys for fantasy units as I have now dubbed them, for the most part are the ones with the bad attitudes that flame other members. They treat every criticism of the game as if it were blasphemy, act like they get a paycheck from CA, and instead of defending fantasy units usually make disparaging remarks about those that criticize them. (ex. Nitpicking comic book store miniature-painters will never understand real life because the concept of compromise is foreign to them.) A bit ridiculous if you ask me, and I think it says a whole lot more about the person making such a statement needing to get a life.

Granted that doesn't apply to everyone who is happy with the fantasy units, but it does seem to apply to most.
Lovely truthfull post, Lord Longshanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ June 17 2004,07:47)]yes those are the Nile Cavalry BUT looks are less important to FUNCTION - these are a Greek like Heavy Cav and so in Function they work well

Looks are of Sub Importance to Function
No matter how important their behaviour in combat is, the unit look is more urgent. Why? Because behaviour in combat is one of the easiest factors to mod. 3d unit skins and geometry are not easy to mod.

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]No matter how important their behaviour in combat is, the unit look is more urgent. Why? Because behaviour in combat is one of the easiest factors to mod. 3d unit skins and geometry are not easy to mod.

i was talking about in an Unmodded game and tbh Looks are unimportant full stop - the Units in MTW looked nothing like their conterparts from history most the time but they had enough of the RL function that we could foget the Blareing errors

and u are wrong onm the model front - ive allready been talking to Flip and hes under the impression that Modeling a full 3d model is actually EASIER than creating new unit bif's in MTW - he should know... and there are plenty of skilled Modlers out there (mainly in the 1st person shooter mods) who we can entice over here

so Long as the Un-Moded game comes with Units that Fir the Historical Funtion of a Faction (Pike and Horse in this case) i dont really care if they take some liberties with looks and other units...

[Captain Fishpants]

I'm expecting to be flamed for my trouble, but -

Quite a few people are getting very cross and building a view of things that is extrapolated from quite small amounts of (sometimes old) information.

I copy a new build of the game over to my PC at least once a day and I'm often surprised by how much things have changed, even in the space of a morning: functionally, logically and graphically. This is to be expected, as elements of the game gel into a coherent whole and approach their final form. Today I was quite surprised to find out that a couple of town plans had changed, and one of my settlements looked entirely different - and a lot nicer.

This constant change isn't conspiracy, it's game development. Many CA-ers have come onto the forums over time and repeatedly pointed out that this is a game *in development* and that things change at regular intervals. What you see as released material is a snapshot of a moment in time. Sometimes you'll like it, sometimes you won't, but by the time the snapshot is out there things will have moved on in some way. That's what happens.

Therefore, I put it to you that some of the opinions expressed here are based on out-of-date information, or rumour, or both. The automatic assumption that the game will "need" modding is a case in point: no, it won't. Some people may *want* to mod it, but that's a different issue.

[Nowake]

Indeed, you are right, and on many ocassions I said almost the same thing.

But most people here take for granted what they read: this egyptian fuss became a debate when IGN put the unit descriptions up. People saw them put there as the Egyptian Unit Descriptions and not as Egyptian Provisory Unit Descriptions, thus they decided that this is the final unit tree for the egyptians. In my opinion, even so, is not worth so much ranting, but they are not completely mistaken.

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ June 18 2004,07:26)]I'm expecting to be flamed for my trouble, but -
Who would dare

It's good to know that our kitchen hasn't gotten too hot for you.

[Lil' Timmy]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ June 18 2004,06:26)]I'm expecting to be flamed for my trouble, but -

Quite a few people are getting very cross and building a view of things that is extrapolated from quite small amounts of (sometimes old) information.

I copy a new build of the game over to my PC at least once a day and I'm often surprised by how much things have changed, even in the space of a morning: functionally, logically and graphically. This is to be expected, as elements of the game gel into a coherent whole and approach their final form. Today I was quite surprised to find out that a couple of town plans had changed, and one of my settlements looked entirely different - and a lot nicer.

This constant change isn't conspiracy, it's game development. Many CA-ers have come onto the forums over time and repeatedly pointed out that this is a game *in development* and that things change at regular intervals. What you see as released material is a snapshot of a moment in time. Sometimes you'll like it, sometimes you won't, but by the time the snapshot is out there things will have moved on in some way. That's what happens.

Therefore, I put it to you that some of the opinions expressed here are based on out-of-date information, or rumour, or both. The automatic assumption that the game will "need" modding is a case in point: no, it won't. Some people may *want* to mod it, but that's a different issue.
well, it's nice to finally see CA, unofficially at least, respond to the concerns of many forumites. while it certainly floats one's hopes that the things we've been seeing at ign and other places are out-of-date and not representative of the final game, it would have been nice to hear a specific response to our concerns about the egyptian faction and whatnot.

also, i want to say that no one was saying that the game will need to be modded for everyone. personally though, i'd need to know that there is a more historically accurate mod available/in production to buy the game in the first place (assuming the accuracy problems are intact in the final release). so i, for one, could say that the game *needs* to be modded, for me at least.

but that's just a grammatical argument.. please don't mistake personal concerns with a sweeping critique about the overall appeal of the game. basically what i'm saying is *need* is in the eye of the beholder (unless you're talking about sex, food or beer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif).

[Rosacrux]

Welcome Captain Fishpants and thank you for your reply. I personally and most probably all of the "moaning" faction, wouldn't even dare on flaming you when you show up to address our concerns.

On the contrary, I find it extremely positive that at least one CA guy has come out of the woodwork to say something to the fans - after all, we ain't expecting any change to the game occure by divine intervention, we expect the devs to listen.

Point is though that the everyday stream of information regarding this game is dissapointing, considering the issue about this NOT being a game for serious gamers too (but only for the console-mongering "casual gamer", as it appeared through the available data).

We are going to wait anyway for the realease - there's not much else we could do.

But we really, really want this game to fulfil it's extreme potential for being the best strategy game of all times. And this is not going to happen with pigs, dogs, screaming women and one of the key-factions of the game replaced with a fantasy-hollyweird hybrid.

[Voigtkampf]

Nice to see a familiar face, Captain Fishpants And I just mentioned in another thread how you guys disappeared into the great wide open

Lately, the discussion on the Rome has become very heated, and there are quite some complaints about several issues at hand, mostly concerned with historical accuracy both of units and some factions in the upcoming game. It is sad if you start your post expressing concerns to be flamed by our members, but I believe that the most concerns are genuine and well-thought, with the end goal of participating in the creation of Rome that will absolutely and undoubtedly own the strategy domain

Though your schedule is very tight, I must assume, I'm glad you took the time to give some more words from you here at the Org. It would have been better if such appearances could occur more frequently, both from you and other respected members from CA, but I would for one like you guys to dedicate all of your time in shaping up the new game to its best possible form

Respectfully,

voigtkampf

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ June 18 2004,03:26)]I'm expecting to be flamed for my trouble, but -

Quite a few people are getting very cross and building a view of things that is extrapolated from quite small amounts of (sometimes old) information.

I copy a new build of the game over to my PC at least once a day and I'm often surprised by how much things have changed, even in the space of a morning: functionally, logically and graphically. This is to be expected, as elements of the game gel into a coherent whole and approach their final form. Today I was quite surprised to find out that a couple of town plans had changed, and one of my settlements looked entirely different - and a lot nicer.

This constant change isn't conspiracy, it's game development. Many CA-ers have come onto the forums over time and repeatedly pointed out that this is a game *in development* and that things change at regular intervals. What you see as released material is a snapshot of a moment in time. Sometimes you'll like it, sometimes you won't, but by the time the snapshot is out there things will have moved on in some way. That's what happens.

Therefore, I put it to you that some of the opinions expressed here are based on out-of-date information, or rumour, or both. The automatic assumption that the game will "need" modding is a case in point: no, it won't. Some people may *want* to mod it, but that's a different issue.
Hopefully, that direction is in towards a more historically accurate Egypt.

Still, it's good to hear that there is still a chance that things may be changed for the better instead of us just having to accept this.

[Aelwyn]

Yep I bet there are people just sitting in there offices just laughing and laughing at the people who buy their games.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif get serious. I hope they make unhistorical games. Say its historical and then make up units. Then hopefully they'll piss off the people who care about that so much that they won't even bother to post the same crap over and over and over. Then people can come to the Colosseum or the Sword Dojo or whatever it is, without being sick of seeing the same crap.

Whatever forget it, I'm going to the Net. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ June 18 2004,06:26)]I'm expecting to be flamed for my trouble, but -
Nobody would think of that. Hostil behaviour is never good. But the people that were most concerned with the Historical accuracy problem were just expressing their great disapointment about IGN's info release. That came as a shock for a lot of people. Some got angry (myself included), but that is by no means a sign of hostility towards CA's technical staff.



Quote[/b] ]Quite a few people are getting very cross and building a view of things that is extrapolated from quite small amounts of (sometimes old) information.

I copy a new build of the game over to my PC at least once a day and I'm often surprised by how much things have changed, even in the space of a morning: functionally, logically and graphically. This is to be expected, as elements of the game gel into a coherent whole and approach their final form. Today I was quite surprised to find out that a couple of town plans had changed, and one of my settlements looked entirely different - and a lot nicer.

This constant change isn't conspiracy, it's game development. Many CA-ers have come onto the forums over time and repeatedly pointed out that this is a game *in development* and that things change at regular intervals. What you see as released material is a snapshot of a moment in time. Sometimes you'll like it, sometimes you won't, but by the time the snapshot is out there things will have moved on in some way. That's what happens.

Therefore, I put it to you that some of the opinions expressed here are based on out-of-date information, or rumour, or both. The automatic assumption that the game will "need" modding is a case in point: no, it won't. Some people may *want* to mod it, but that's a different issue.
Let's hope that our fears were unfundamented and unjustified. Nothing would please me the most. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[RisingSun]

Honestly, it is great to see a CA member finally come out and try to talk.

But I'm not going to sugar coat it- This certainly could be a way of indirectly telling us "The units have changed and are better now." Or on the other hand, it could just be a way of trying to deflate support for the outraged historical accuracy crowd, and make it seem like the units have been changed and are better now.

I'm no longer a very trusting person of CA.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ June 17 2004,20:49)]
Quote[/b] ]No matter how important their behaviour in combat is, the unit look is more urgent. Why? Because behaviour in combat is one of the easiest factors to mod. 3d unit skins and geometry are not easy to mod.
i was talking about in an Unmodded game and tbh Looks are unimportant full stop - the Units in MTW looked nothing like their conterparts from history most the time but they had enough of the RL function that we could foget the Blareing errors

and u are wrong onm the model front - ive allready been talking to Flip and hes under the impression that Modeling a full 3d model is actually EASIER than creating new unit bif's in MTW - he should know... and there are plenty of skilled Modlers out there (mainly in the 1st person shooter mods) who we can entice over here
No. You're mixing things up. I said:

Because behaviour in combat is one of the easiest factors to mod. 3d unit skins and geometry are not easy to mod.

That is: behaviour (spreedsheet data) is far easier to mod than 3d (geometry and texturization work).

I wasn't comparing 3d with bif moding. But the only difference between them is that you need to save 12 action positions of the unit in bif format, instead of making several types of animation. It all amounts to this: what takes more time, saving the 12 positions in bif or making several animations in 3d? I'll say 3d animations. Why? Because I've worked im 3d animation since 1996 and I really know what I am talking about...

[SwordsMaster]

I think Longshanks and Captain Fishpants answered everything there was to be said.

Just patience guys. Let the game come out, and THEN you may want to criticize it. not BEFORE it is done.

Have you ever flamed at a half-cooked soup?
Thats all I have to say. And guys, there are too many threads oriented in this direction already, I think we are becoming a little annoying for everyone who reads this.

Its summer, enjoy it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Lil' Timmy]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ June 20 2004,19:37)]Have you ever flamed at a half-cooked soup?
Thats all I have to say. And guys, there are too many threads oriented in this direction already, I think we are becoming a little annoying for everyone who reads this.
well, you don't have to read these threads.. do you? as per your analogy, if i was going to buy a soup that someone was making for me, and it was supposed to be tomato soup.. and i saw the chefs throwing hunks of pork and celery and the odd piece of cardboard in the soup.. i'd raise some concerns, even before the finished product hit my table. of course i don't have to buy the soup.. but i really really want tomato soup, and my sampling of this establishments other soups has led me to believe that they can make the best tomato soup in town. wait.. what are we talking about?

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]That is: behaviour (spreedsheet data) is far easier to mod than 3d (geometry and texturization work).

I wasn't comparing 3d with bif moding. But the only difference between them is that you need to save 12 action positions of the unit in bif format, instead of making several types of animation. It all amounts to this: what takes more time, saving the 12 positions in bif or making several animations in 3d? I'll say 3d animations. Why? Because I've worked im 3d animation since 1996 and I really know what I am talking about...


u havent worked with Bifs then have u... talk to flip or DJ and let them tell u how "easy" Bifs are - by comparison Skining (a 11 year old can do skining with the right programs (PSP, APS)) and Modeling (difficult ill admit but since Flip and DJ allready Model the unit the fact they dont then have to create a bif from the model must be a plus) is a walk in the park

i never suggested it was Easy just easier than Bif's and since udont really know what goes into the production of a Bif may i suggest u find out First - 70% of the Work for HTW is creating and Animating Bif's and i think Flip and Kom Deserve a great amount of praise for the work theyve done on it

and if you think Behavour is easier to mod u are barking again up a theoretical tree - its all relient on IF the Devs have decided to Create a game for modders or have gone for another MTW - in MTW how a unit ACTS is incredibale difficult to play with to the point u CANT - you can trick the game into to acting in certain ways but actually changing their Actions is not really allowed... hopefully they have learnt from their mistakes

[SwordsMaster]

But the soup has ingredients that you may like (like tomatoes) and other that you may not like (like garlic, just an example no need to be picky). But the final result is going to be the best tomato soup in town. So will you tolerate the garlic? (I realize that garlic are either pigs or egyptians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif this is weird...)

Im gonna get some dinner... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ June 20 2004,17:22)]But the soup has ingredients that you may like (like tomatoes) and other that you may not like (like garlic, just an example no need to be picky). But the final result is going to be the best tomato soup in town. So will you tolerate the garlic? (I realize that garlic are either pigs or egyptians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif this is weird...)

Im gonna get some dinner... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif
Well, if I ordered vegetarian tomato soup and the chef started throwing beef and pork, I'm going to have some real concerns. Even if it is the best tomato soup in town, it's not a vegetarian tomato soup anymore.

OTOH, I'm not vegetarian and I like tomato soup to have some chunks of beef in it. I'm still concerned about the Egyptians, though I'm willing to give CA some more benefit of the doubt because of Captain Fishpants' reply.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 20 2004,22:04)]Well, if I ordered vegetarian tomato soup and the chef started throwing beef and pork, I'm going to have some real concerns. Even if it is the best tomato soup in town, it's not a vegetarian tomato soup anymore.

OTOH, I'm not vegetarian and I like tomato soup to have some chunks of beef in it.
Glad you said you are not a vegetarian, but that you actually seem to like few pieces of meat here and there, so this does not apply to you, but many people fail to realize that in this case they are not ordering anything, its beef on today's manual and beef you can have, if you want veggie food, you'll just have to go elsewhere, so do not flame the cook http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] ] It all amounts to this: what takes more time, saving the 12 positions in bif or making several animations in 3d?
For M:TW you do both. You will need to skin, model and animate. And that is besides the almost impossibility of creation new unit graphics if Wellington didn't made his tool for processing renderings. With R:TW you might only need to skin for the simple units. So unitcreation will probably alot easier than currently in M:TW. If you don't like the look of the units, then there is a big chance that you can fix it within a day as opposed to several days with M:TW.

Cheers, Duke John

[SwordsMaster]

Thats what I was going to say Voigtkampf. Thats the idea.
They dont "owe" you a game. They just build a new game.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ June 20 2004,20:18)]
Quote[/b] ]That is: behaviour (spreedsheet data) is far easier to mod than 3d (geometry and texturization work).

I wasn't comparing 3d with bif moding. But the only difference between them is that you need to save 12 action positions of the unit in bif format, instead of making several types of animation. It all amounts to this: what takes more time, saving the 12 positions in bif or making several animations in 3d? I'll say 3d animations. Why? Because I've worked im 3d animation since 1996 and I really know what I am talking about...


u havent worked with Bifs then have u... talk to flip or DJ and let them tell u how "easy" Bifs are - by comparison Skining (a 11 year old can do skining with the right programs (PSP, APS)) and Modeling (difficult ill admit but since Flip and DJ allready Model the unit the fact they dont then have to create a bif from the model must be a plus) is a walk in the park

i never suggested it was Easy just easier than Bif's and since udont really know what goes into the production of a Bif may i suggest u find out First - 70% of the Work for HTW is creating and Animating Bif's and i think Flip and Kom Deserve a great amount of praise for the work theyve done on it
Have you been reading my post? Yes, I've worked with bifs - it's a pain in the a**. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be talking about it. Problem is that both processes are similar - there is just one or two steps that differ. And you saying that any 11 year old can skin and mod accuratelly, is a testament to your ignorance on the matter. It's not easy. That is why you really still don't have a correct idea of the amount of work those two guys had



Quote[/b] ]and if you think Behavour is easier to mod u are barking again up a theoretical tree - its all relient on IF the Devs have decided to Create a game for modders or have gone for another MTW - in MTW how a unit ACTS is incredibale difficult to play with to the point u CANT - you can trick the game into to acting in certain ways but actually changing their Actions is not really allowed... hopefully they have learnt from their mistakes
No. Unit behaviour only depends on unit stats (Crusader_unit_prod) not on anims. Bif anims are just that anims. They have only graphical repercursions, not battle behaviour repercursions.

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]No. Unit behaviour only depends on unit stats (Crusader_unit_prod) not on anims. Bif anims are just that anims. They have only graphical repercursions, not battle behaviour repercursions.

erm thats what i was taslking about and while u can trick the game into acting along predefined routes it isnt easy - hence the problem of projectile units ALWAYS skirmishing under AI command (guess what i spend my time playing with on the HTW team eh)

and yes Skinning is a joke - my Brother 12 skins for Morrowind - and read through what i said again i did say Modeling was difficult i never said that was easy BUT as Duke John said to create MTW units u allready Model and Animate so you are cutting out the whole Bif Creation process (and the tedious playing with the animation scripts)

the fact is unless you are creating a totally NEW mod you wont need to Model - ie if you want to remove the Horns from mr bull warrior u take a model with no horns and reskin it to look like what u want - same with Egyption's take a Greek model and reskin to give a darker skin tone bingo no Ancient head gear - any mod set within the Timeframe RTW is set will have ample numbers of Models to use its just a matter of removing the models you dont like

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 21 2004,21:46)]And you saying that any 11 year old can skin and mod accuratelly, is a testament to your ignorance on the matter. It's not easy.
A simple Google search will provide you with tons of very reliable and easy tutorials on this subject. Frankly, I don't know any 11 year old boy that can do it, but I know dozen kids of 16-17 years that do various skinning and modeling stuff for the PC magazine I work with as a sort of a hobby. You should drop by some FPS site and make inquiries on their forums, FPS central is a good place for starters, and you will find out that the skinning and remodeling is actually quite simple; the vast amount of updates on, say Battlefield: Vietnam and various new vehicle models and skins of weapons/soldiers proves that this is neither an impossible nor all too time consuming task.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 22 2004,16:11)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 21 2004,21:46)]And you saying that any 11 year old can skin and mod accuratelly, is a testament to your ignorance on the matter. It's not easy.
A simple Google search will provide you with tons of very reliable and easy tutorials on this subject. Frankly, I don't know any 11 year old boy that can do it, but I know dozen kids of 16-17 years that do various skinning and modeling stuff for the PC magazine I work with as a sort of a hobby. You should drop by some FPS site and make inquiries on their forums, FPS central is a good place for starters, and you will find out that the skinning and remodeling is actually quite simple; the vast amount of updates on, say Battlefield: Vietnam and various new vehicle models and skins of weapons/soldiers proves that this is neither an impossible nor all too time consuming task.
I can skin (well sort of) but not model, and i'm 13, it's not that hard, just f****** tedious

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ June 22 2004,06:03)]
Quote[/b] ]No. Unit behaviour only depends on unit stats (Crusader_unit_prod) not on anims. Bif anims are just that anims. They have only graphical repercursions, not battle behaviour repercursions.
erm thats what i was taslking about and while u can trick the game into acting along predefined routes it isnt easy - hence the problem of projectile units ALWAYS skirmishing under AI command (guess what i spend my time playing with on the HTW team eh)

and yes Skinning is a joke - my Brother 12 skins for Morrowind - and read through what i said again i did say Modeling was difficult i never said that was easy BUT as Duke John said to create MTW units u allready Model and Animate so you are cutting out the whole Bif Creation process (and the tedious playing with the animation scripts)
Morrowhind has an easy to use editor, right? Some programs have easy to use skining editors because in mainstream ones it is hard. If not for that, it wouldn't be necessary to make them specificaly for each game, would it?

I'm talking about real 3d aplications needed for games that don't have built-in editors: Lightwave, Maya, MAX, XSI, etc...



Quote[/b] ]the fact is unless you are creating a totally NEW mod you wont need to Model - ie if you want to remove the Horns from mr bull warrior u take a model with no horns and reskin it to look like what u want - same with Egyption's take a Greek model and reskin to give a darker skin tone bingo no Ancient head gear - any mod set within the Timeframe RTW is set will have ample numbers of Models to use its just a matter of removing the models you dont like
How do you know that? How can you be sure of the existance of such a skining editor in RTW? Did CA said RTW would have one?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 22 2004,08:11)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 21 2004,21:46)]And you saying that any 11 year old can skin and mod accuratelly, is a testament to your ignorance on the matter. It's not easy.
A simple Google search will provide you with tons of very reliable and easy tutorials on this subject. Frankly, I don't know any 11 year old boy that can do it, but I know dozen kids of 16-17 years that do various skinning and modeling stuff for the PC magazine I work with as a sort of a hobby.
Precisely. You know some 16-17 year-old boys. I know a couple of them too. Some, not ALL and besides we're talking about 16-17 not 11.



Quote[/b] ]You should drop by some FPS site and make inquiries on their forums, FPS central is a good place for starters, and you will find out that the skinning and remodeling is actually quite simple; the vast amount of updates on, say Battlefield: Vietnam and various new vehicle models and skins of weapons/soldiers proves that this is neither an impossible nor all too time consuming task.
People tend to mix up things. I know of the existance of various graphical alteration MODs for HL, Q3, UT, MOHAA, etc... As I said to Sir Moody, it is only easy if you have a built-in skinning editor in the game, or a stand-alone program developed specificaly just for that game. Not when we use a generic maistream aplications like Lightwave, Maya, MAX, XSI, etc...

[Sir Moody]

Aymar basically skining is the applaince of New or Custom Texture Maps onto a Existing Model - prety much every game in exsitance which hasnt Encrypted its Texture maps can be Skined - most tho to the extreme where the Original Texture map is overwritten with the new - its still skining

the CA team has Advertised the fact that the game is Modable and that it is possible to edit the look of a unit - to what extent we dont know BUT at the most BASIC level they should allow us to link Units with a Model and link a model to the related texture maps - MTW does this so RTW definatly should

and so u know Morrowind like most modern games is the same as above u take a texture map and apply it to a model - the Editor the game comes with does NOTHING to help u in this repspect u just tell it which map it wants and which model it expects u not to mess up

[RisingSun]

Quote[/b] ]the CA team has Advertised the fact that the game is Modable and that it is possible to edit the look of a unit - to what extent we dont know BUT at the most BASIC level they should allow us to link Units with a Model and link a model to the related texture maps - MTW does this so RTW definatly should

Yeah, and they also explicitly promised a mix of historically accurate Egyptians. Where did that go?

[Sir Moody]

sigh as ive said before they have given us SOME (key word) Historical Egyption units so they havent broken that promise (look at the pikes they are historical....)

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 22 2004,16:22)]Precisely. You know some 16-17 year-old boys. I know a couple of them too. Some, not ALL and besides we're talking about 16-17 not 11.
Hehe, splitting hairs is better then splitting atoms, that's what I always say http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif BTW, you are above 16-17? If so, that should give you an extra dvantage If you have done 3D skinning and modeling for so many ages, don't know how you can come with it that it's sooo heavy? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Not all are requested to know everything, and not everyone will do skinning and modeling, it is perfectly all right if we get a dozen of teams or so in different projects, some will definitely bring out "Rome: TW Gamers Historically Accurate Edition", so not every player is required to be able to skin/model


Quote[/b] ]
People tend to mix up things. I know of the existance of various graphical alteration MODs for HL, Q3, UT, MOHAA, etc... As I said to Sir Moody, it is only easy if you have a built-in skinning editor in the game, or a stand-alone program developed specificaly just for that game. Not when we use a generic maistream aplications like Lightwave, Maya, MAX, XSI, etc...


I use 3D Studio Max 5 and will be getting myself version 6 for the upcoming R:TW game; and though you are partially right, some games have built-in editors that make life easier for modders (and, btw, I'm quite certain that R:TW will fall into that category), even without it skinning and modeling should be a fairly easy task. Somewhat time consuming, depending on the level of experience and working hours people have with the specified tools, but still fairly easy.

But, this is all empty talk, I suppose; once the R:TW comes out, we will see by the frequence of new mods appearing just how difficult it really is for people in general to skin and mod the models from the game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ June 23 2004,03:15)]sigh as ive said before they have given us SOME (key word) Historical Egyption units so they havent broken that promise (look at the pikes they are historical....)
Exactly Only the pikes they are holding are historical... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Well, we could always MOD it to make it historically accurate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
CA pisses me off. Pigs? Peegs? COME ON GUYS You made Shogun and Medieval Total War, and you feed us this Crap?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif
-Capo

[Sir Moody]

well i do find the pigs a little fishy but im happy to hear from all the people who saw it at E3 tha tthey only seem to work against Elephants - ie no Elephants no use for pigs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif